Proposed tax on electric cars in NSW and Victoria

[lombard]

Reports on 24 December 2019 state that both the Victorian and New South Wales governments are reportedly considering a new tax for electric vehicles.

It follows a report by Infrastructure Partnerships Australia which recommended a per-kilometre tax for electric vehicles.

But this short-sighted approach risks killing the golden goose of our transport system.

Have a look here:

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-24/a-proposed-new-tax-on-electric-vehicles-is-a-bad-idea/11813630

What's next - a per kilometre tax on bicycles, mobility scooters and walking frames?  Anyone interested in signing a petition let me know.  Oh and Merry Christmas from the NSW Government.

[johnmath]

A per kilometre tax on electric vehicle is supposedly to make up for the lost excise on fuel which is about $27billion per year, money that is supposed to be spent on building and maintaining roads. The Australian government subsidy to the fossil energy sector is ~$29billion per annum according to an IMF working paper. If fossil fuel vehicles were banned and subsidies to prop up fuel supply for them were ended, the government would be $2billion per annum better off without having to tax electric vehicle use.

www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA2019089.ashx

[brunohill]

My local council rates pay for the roads I drive on . Perhaps non rate payers should pay a fee per km.

[tomkauf]

The good thing is, it's not going to happen. It'd require the government to monitor vehicles, and that could be very expensive (monitoring devices installed in vehicles). And privacy issues are a concern, so they can't just demand that everyone gets them installed.

I'd be ok with everyone paying a flat fee (same for all ICE and Electric Vehicles).

But yeah, it's ridiculous that they're looking into that, considering how low the EV rates are here in Australia.

[johnmath]

'Make fossil fuel producers pay levy' Australian Financial Review

"Every tonne of coal mined ends up as more greenhouse gas in the in the atmosphere, fuelling climate change and making catastrophes like these fires worse," she said in a statement.
"It is staggering that the coal and gas companies that profit from this don't have to pay for any of the costs. Our communities are paying the price for their activities. It's high time they started paying for the damage they are causing."

www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/make-fossil-fuel-producers-pay-levy-20191218-p53kyi

[EVangelist]

My view is this will go nowhere. It was triggered by an IPA proposal (Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, not the alt-right Institute of Public Affairs, although it could have easily come from them too  ).  The IPA, who loves nothing more than governments spending billions on roads, fear a lessening in the amount of public teat they can suck on if the amount of money sloshing around from fuel excise shrinks as more EVs join the fleet.

So their “brilliant” idea was to start taxing vehicles that use less the 1L/100km of liquid fuels.  Note the number - it was deliberately chosen to be that low so that almost every type of plug-in and non-plug-in hybrid car would miraculously escape.  Otherwise there would be a political problem, given the very much larger number of hybrid drivers who would then revolt and write to their local member.  The much smaller number of BEV drivers at present would, under the IPA thinking, be too small to have any political clout, so the government should get in early before they do have clout.  If you’re going to attack a target, make sure you only attack ones that you think can’t fight back.  Rigorous and logical evidence-based policy justification right there.

BUT what governments would be concerned about is the flip-side.  If charging BEV drivers a tax to fund road building is good public policy, then the debate could turn and it could be used as justification to charge fossil fuel users a tax to fund escalating health costs and natural disaster recovery costs caused by the use of that product.  And the latter of course is something the other IPA and big industry would never countenance.

It would be a classic case of “be careful what you wish for”.

[jin]

Oh yes, might as well double down and double up carbon tax on EVs as well while we're at it.

Did NSW rego charge us enough for heavy vehicles yet?

When every other country in the world is trying to promote EV uptake by reducing taxes, rego costs and even rebates, only geriatric Australian politicians are keen to do nothing but flounder in the 1960s.
Let's downgrade to horses.

[rusdy]

Dec 26, 2019 8:40:40 GMT 11 EVangelist said:

...  The IPA, who loves nothing more than governments spending billions on roads, fear a lessening in the amount of public teat they can suck on if the amount of money sloshing around from fuel excise shrinks as more EVs join the fleet.

So their “brilliant” idea was to start taxing vehicles that use less the 1L/100km of liquid fuels.  Note the number - it was deliberately chosen to be that low so that almost every type of plug-in and non-plug-in hybrid car would miraculously escape.  Otherwise there would be a political problem, given the very much larger number of hybrid drivers who would then revolt and write to their local member.


  ...

good point.

If there is something fishy about any public policy recommendation, always follow the money. Basically, it's IPA own interest to keep the 'path of least resistance' to keep the money going in building more roads. I just quick googled what IPA is all about. Looks like everything to do in building roads.

This is exactly my angst about these so called 'think tank' that only specialised to a certain infrastructure. It fails to consider the bigger picture, i.e. accessibility, not mobility (long read here). 

[foggy]

I once talked to another leaf owner About 7 years ago on this subject. He had, what seemed to me at the time, a good idea. To tax tyres instead of fuel. On thinkin on it, i have since concluded that this would promote the use of of super hard tyre compounds that would probably not be as safe among other problems.I cannot see an easy answer to this issue, and i think Elon is changing the world so much, so soon,that even Australians will have to accommodate it sooner than most expect. (or go to coal powered horses perhaps) This last would simply be a case of adjusting the present tax from petrol to coal powered horse feed.

I am far from reassured by the argument that if we are charged for road building, Fuel burners will be charged for climate change damage.It is a sound logic, but the link betwixt government and logic is tangential at best.

Those figures about us being 2 billion in front if we stopped fossil fuel subsidies is a solid and simple enough one if it is veridical. For instance: By subsidies, are we including coal? if so, this will be seen as comparing the costs of apples and oranges to grapefruit.

As for the privacy argument. I cannot see any government these days letting that get in the way. In the leaf at least, the equipment is already installed. Instead of just transmitting your driving data ONLY to carwings in Japan the Government could get a copy and not pressing OK for each drive will NOT be an option. It would be another great height of embarrassment for us to be THE country that taxed no emission vehicles, but we hold or heads high with a Prime Minister who bought COAL into parliament in the twenty first century so i expect this would be no greater feat! Notwithstanding: This idea that we should be financially rewarding EV owners is the best answer to this challenge, but possibly not the only one.
is mise mehull